[bell-cot]

Size matters.

Flight 17 was shot down with a Buk missile. Wikipedia says 150 lbs. warhead.

Flight 655 was shot down with 2 SM-2MR missiles. Wikipedia is mum about warhead weight...but the missiles themselves would be over 3,000 lbs. (combined).

Vs. the helicopter was shot down with a 24 lbs. missile, with a 2.6 lbs. warhead.

One extremely clear lesson from WWII was that hitting a fixed-wing aircraft was very different from shooting it down. Size mattered. Once the combatants realized that, they replaced their start-of-war "you might get a hit in just the right spot" pea shooters with the heaviest AA weapons that they could use.

[lupusreal]

So you're saying that fixed wing airliners are better than helicopter airliners because shooting them down requires larger missiles?

Either of these are such fringe scenarios, it doesn't make sense to judge either whole class of aircraft by this type of incident.

[bell-cot]

I'm saying that helicopters are more fragile, period. It doesn't matter whether you are testing that via consequences of weapons damage. Or counting the number of failure-critial moving parts. Or digging through flight-safety statistics. Or computer modeling the effects of the sudden loss of the outer 1/4 of one [wing|rotor blade]. Or getting quotes on life insurance for a career pilot. Or asking a savvy fortune teller.

[throwup238]

> So you're saying that fixed wing airliners are better than helicopter airliners because shooting them down requires larger missiles?

Yes, it not only increases the barrier to entry for attackers but airlines can install some defenses against MANPADS since they're easier to counteract than more advanced missiles. Some Israeli companies have developed and certified flare based anti-MANPADS systems like Flight Guard and laser based ones like C-MUSIC, though I don't think airlines have widely deployed them yet.

Once they're at cruising altitude, man portable AA can't bring them down.

[lupusreal]

These shoot downs are such uncommon events that it makes no sense to judge passenger aircraft by them. You may as well say that helicopters are better because, not using runways, they avoid a repeat Tenerife scenario.

Any consideration like this is completely washed out by practical/economic considerations; how much money can you make operating an airline with either kind of aircraft, and what kind of capabilities do they provide? This is why fixed wing aircraft are almost always better, except when the particular capabilities of helicopters invoke their use.

[frabert]

I think what they're saying is that you can't easily target a fixed-wing aircraft flying miles above ground with hand-held equipment like you would a helicopter

[spookie]

It's true though. A fixed wing aircraft is able to travel faster and higher. That combination in itself makes them much harder to hit.

Look at the next generation of "helicopters" for the US military and their justifications for such.

[lupusreal]

It's true and it's also almost always irrelevant.